IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Everyone has access to health care as it is right now, though they have to pay for it - or, if they are poor or old, get assistance through Medicaid or Medicare

So what then do you mean by "Universal health care " ? Coverage by a health care insurer? A very large fraction of the uninsured are employed young people who choose not to participate in available company plans simply to avoid the cost. There are others of limited means or with chronic diseases who may not be able to get affordable insurance, but who don't qualify for Medicaid.

It would be a fairly simple matter to create subsidies for a basic health care plan for them and, through it, require that everyone participate in either that plan or another of their own choosing.

I don't think that such a program would be very controversial. Unfortunately that isn't the program our Congress is considering.

They propose to write the rules for access to health care and the operations of health care providers for everyone. Moreover a core element of the Democrat party seeks the creation of a government -managed plan, together with economic taxes and disincentives for private plans that would likely lead to the demise of most of them and put nearly everyone under the government plan operating under the enlightened management of the gang who created cash for clunkers, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

No thanks.

The insurance business was very good to Reynaldo Hernandez.

Reynaldo Hernandez is a retired insurance agent who says rising medical costs are causing him pain.

"I loved the business because it rewarded you for your effort. ... I liked the fact that selling insurance was helping people avoid financial loss," the California man says.

He sold insurance in the rural San Diego County town of Ramona for 35 years and retired eight years ago. Since then, he has grown increasingly angry at the business he represented.

And the industry he gave so much to is about to ruin him financially.

"Over the years of my career, I saw the coverage get more expensive, but you got less," says Hernandez.

In 2007, Hernandez, 65, and his wife Janet, 62, spent more than $15,000 on insurance premiums. Add a little more than $8,200 for co-payments and medicine, and Hernandez says they paid about $24, 000 in medical costs that year.

"It took a huge chunk of our income. ... over 25 percent that year."

So the man who sold insurance to so many people had to do without.

"I never thought, in my entire life, that I would ever get to the point that I, as an insurance agent, would ... have problems paying for medical insurance," he says.

"Health insurance for me has been so important. I would never dream of going without.

"Because we could no longer afford that kind of cost, we did the unthinkable. We dropped our insurance," says Hernandez. Watch the family's plight »

"It's a little scary not to ... go to the doctor when you think 'I should have his checked,' " says Janet Hernandez, Reynaldo's wife of 43 years.

"I didn't have proper coverage to be able to go to the doctor and get checked. Knowing that you could lose everything if something happened, that was scary."

Janet Hernandez knows quite a bit about the insurance industry, too. She worked with her husband as an agent for 10 years.

The Hernandezes now have medical insurance. Reynaldo has Medicare, the federal insurance program for senior citizens. But Janet is three years from qualifying for that program.

Until then, they have purchased a private policy to cover medical expenses.

But that policy is expensive.

"We pay about ... $850 a month on my insurance and co-pays on prescriptions and doctor visits," says Janet. "And still today, with ... higher deductibles every year ... still the cost keeps going up, up, up."

"At the rate it is going up... I may not be able to keep her covered until she turns 65," adds Reynaldo.

Those added costs have put a pinch on their retirement.

Although retired, Reynaldo is still a licensed insurance agent. "I'm thinking about trying to go back to work full time so that I can maybe get a group plan to cover my wife," he says.

"We had planned so many years for our retirement and to be able to do things, and travel," says Janet. " We've cut way back on most of our expenses and we just don't do the things we used to do because of the costs."

"Every day I'm looking at our checking account and our saving account and I've become obsessed with it because I see that we don't seem to have it under control," says Reynaldo. "And it's very scary. I shouldn't have to live in fear about our medical expenses."

"I feel very nervous and uneasy about that, and I shouldn't be. I shouldn't have to feel that way in my senior years. I should be able to feel secure."

If Washington wants health care reform with bipartisan support, experts say consider what former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney accomplished as governor in Democratic Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney says the president must have bipartisanship in order to get quality health care reform.

"You don't have to have a public option," Romney said. "You don't have to have the government getting into the insurance business to make it work."

Unlike Democratic proposals that would give Americans the choice of joining a government-run health care plan, Massachusetts has no public option. Instead, people in the state are required to buy private insurance, and the poor get subsidies.

Analysts say "Romney care" is basically "Obama care" minus the public option.

The Massachusetts model, however, does have its problems. Experts say it doesn't control rising health care costs -- something Romney insisted must be tackled on a national level.

Perhaps that's WHY we need a PUBLIC OPTION at the NATIONAL level? So that we the people have a program that is large enough to BARGAIN with the healthcare industry and bring down the costs? To compete with private industry and control rising healthcare costs?

The natural human factors of self selection (out of unsurance by the young and healthy and in it by the aged and infirmed) complicate any government-mandated scheme. Does government really have the power to compell individuals to buy health care insurance?? States routinely require automobile liability insurance - as a condition of getting a license to own and operate a vehicle. However, what gives the Federal government the power to require the purchase of health insurance??

Why hasnt the President passed his plan?

They could have already passed it, if they wanted.

But, that still doesnt explain the WHY.
The dems control congress.
They dont need repub support, or the support of the people.
If they really wanted to pass the bill, they already would have.

Everyone has access to emergency health care right now. For everything else, money is access. If you do not have the money, you will not go for care. The uninsured, btw, pay full price for their care, not the insurance negotiated 50% (or less), and medical bills are still the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US.

I find it hard to believe that young people, who have the cheapest premiums (cheap enough to often be fully paid by the employer contribution) are opting out in droves. I think it is more likely that entrepreneurs, small businesses, the unemployed, and the uninsurable make up the vast amount of our uninsured.

A. Because none of the plans under consideration are his and B. because congress on recess.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut on Sunday urged the Obama administration to consider postponing overhauling the health care system and instead work on smaller chunks of the issue until the economy improves.


“I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy’s out of recession,” Mr. Lieberman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “There’s no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms.”

Mr. Lieberman’s comments could further complicate Democratic efforts to get a health care overhaul passed in Congress. They had been depending on the independent senator to support their efforts, even though he often aligns with Republicans.

If none of the plans being pushed by the Democrats in the House and the Senate "are his" , then what the hell has he been talking about and supporting so incessantly??? President Obama doesn't hesitate to expound at great and endless length - and at a very elevated and abstract level - about universal access to health care; the elimination of "unnecessary" health services; huge savings that will be reaped from Medicare (but oddly not Medicaid); the wonderful new efficiencies government (a "health czar"???) will bring to the delivery of health care - all while assuring listeners that there will be no increase in the deficit; that they can keep their present health care if they like it and will see no interference by the government in their relations with medical providers, etc. etc. If that doesn't make it his, I don't know what does. Worse for the president is the fact that his disparate and often vague assurances cannot be put into any clear, coherent whole. A fast-growing segment of the public has come to the realization that they are being conned.

It seems clear that the President has adopted a public hands off tactic with respect to the legislation simply to avoid a repeat of the debacle that confronted Clinton in 1993.

The facts, that he has made a central goal of passing this legislation and that his key advisors including the esteemed Rham Emanuel are actively and continuously working with the legislative framers of the various bills in the Congress, only make him look like a liar and a fool.

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that young people, who have the cheapest premiums (cheap enough to often be fully paid by the employer contribution) are opting out in droves. I think it is more likely that entrepreneurs, small businesses, the unemployed, and the uninsurable make up the vast amount of our uninsured.

Believe it. I've seen this first hand in a company that had only about 30% acceptance of coverage. You are missing a couple of points here. First, young, healthy people would have the lowest premiums if they were buying private insurance. They are not. The company for which I was doing payroll had two rates. Single and Family. They young got no benefit for being young, and those with chronic health conditions did not pay extra. I think this is called adverse selection. Second, premiums for young, healthy people can not be fully paid by employer contribution, while others are paying a specific percentage of the premium. Don't ask me to furnish the specific law, but that's not something an employer can do.